ho_co Posted November 25, 2009 Share #1 Posted November 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) M9, part 8A Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2009 Posted November 25, 2009 Hi ho_co, Take a look here Puts M9 part 8a is up. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Marty Posted November 25, 2009 Share #2 Posted November 25, 2009 Sigh. There is the usual metaphorical first part of the text and waxing lyrical about good old film and how digital has become too complicated (in fact a critique in disguise). Except now it's management whereas last time it was mountain bikes. Nobody should need high ISO because it wasn't needed in film. We should be using something called "Spur Orthopan" in a M7 for critical work. I guess it's going to be sour grapes for the potential S2 customers, too. Thankfully in the next part we will see some Epson prints... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted November 25, 2009 Share #3 Posted November 25, 2009 Don't knock it without trying for yourself how good film based photography is these days. What I mean by that is the big improvement in films and lenses, and scanners available in many high street processing labs that offer almost drum scan quality and at very reasonable prices. I recently used some of Kodak's new Ektar 100 negative film on modern Leica glass, and was staggered by the true detail. It looked beautiful too. Another thing one should not forget is how much we've all learnt in the art of post processing files. So, shoot a bit of film, get it properly scanned, then pop it into Lightroom (for example) - it's truly amazing what can be achieved with very little effort. It's not better than digital, but it reassures me film has unique strengths which stand as tall as the obvious benefits and strengths of digital. A lot of pro photographers I meet in the course of my assignments are increasingly carrying a film camera (usually an M), with a sizable number talking about the possibility of shooting whole assignments on film purely for the look. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 25, 2009 Share #4 Posted November 25, 2009 Well, he's kind of right, right? I rarely shot film above ISO 400, why should it be different with digital? Some of my favorite photos were at the edges, where I was pushing as far as I could go in terms of shooting wide open at slow shutter speeds. Sometimes this meant photos with blur and movement and atmosphere. These photos wouldn't be the same if I had ISO 6400. It's a pretty fair and well considered essay I think. I've been considering a return to film for reasons of archiving, workflow and the look of B&W film. But I know if I do I'll give up some high iso performance. He says that at very slow speeds film outresolves the M9 but at medium ISO it's more equal, and I'm guessing that digital will take the lead at high ISO. No real surprises there I think. We're at the point, finally, that to shoot Leica RF you don't need to choose either film or digital based on quality, but can decide based on the look you're going for. Not a bad place to be:D Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2009 Share #5 Posted November 25, 2009 Yes- but sometimes opinion gets drowned in words - and how many words can one spend on one camera? Dragging the film vs digital debate into it is taking it a bit far imo - that is more of a different subject, and a well-chewed subject too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tashley Posted November 25, 2009 Share #6 Posted November 25, 2009 Well, he's kind of right, right? I rarely shot film above ISO 400, why should it be different with digital? Yup and my great great granny didn't have access to antibiotics so why should I use them now? All advances are useful provided that the hidden losses behind the gains they offer don't outweigh the gains themselves. I for one find Puts to be a dinosaur staggering around on stage at the Met. The spectacle is fascinating but not eddifying... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ash Posted November 25, 2009 Share #7 Posted November 25, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) We're at the point, finally, that to shoot Leica RF you don't need to choose either film or digital based on quality, but can decide based on the look you're going for. Not a bad place to be:D Noah, very well set out. This is one of the things I very much like about the M-system. Regards Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
noah_addis Posted November 25, 2009 Share #8 Posted November 25, 2009 Yup and my great great granny didn't have access to antibiotics so why should I use them now?... Well, the overuse of antibiotics in industrial-scale agribusiness may well lead to superbugs that will kill us all. Any doctor will tell you using antibiotics when they're not needed is dangerous or, at the very least, ill-advised. But really the differences in the utilization of technology in art as opposed to science is probably beyond the scope of this forum. I'm not saying that digital capabilities such as low-noise super high ISO aren't useful and welcome and even necessary for certain kinds of photography, all I'm saying is that if a particular photographer doesn't NEED them for his or her work, then it's pointless to go on about them. I'm not a huge fan of Puts either--the point of my first post is that while I agree with his basic premise, his M9 review has added little to the discussion that isn't fairly obvious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roydonian Posted November 25, 2009 Share #9 Posted November 25, 2009 Yup and my great great granny didn't have access to antibiotics so why should I use them now? Perhaps a more accurate analogy for the usefulness of extreme levels of ISO sensitivity might be that some airliners once flew at 1,500 mph, but most passengers found 500 mph to be fast enough. Some folk saw a need for such speed, but a lot did not. I have met a few photographic situations that could not be solved by 1/30 sec at f1 with ISO 800 film, but they have been so few that I don't lose any sleep over being limited to the equivalent of ISO 800 on my M8. If I ever go the full-frame route, then I'll happily accept whatever speed increase is available by that time - it would really 'supercharge' my new TriElmar - but it's not something that that will be a deal-breaker for me if it's not available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusperkins Posted November 25, 2009 Share #10 Posted November 25, 2009 Yes- but sometimes opinion gets drowned in words - and how many words can one spend on one camera? Dragging the film vs digital debate into it is taking it a bit far imo - that is more of a different subject, and a well-chewed subject too. This is not film vs digital, this is all about choice as noah_addis correctly points out, and we're all the richer for it. Whilst digital has clearly improved massively over the years, so too has the technology to shoot and handle film. The ability to shoot a roll, have it easily processed and scanned at 6,200dpi is here now. Load it into Lightroom, and Wow! The improvements in lenses made for digital also has a very beneficial effect when shooting film, particularly for the newer emulsions. Scanning old negs shot on old lenses does not compare to newer films shot on 'made for digital' lenses. And forget home scanning (unless you have the £16,000 X5). Your local minilab will probably have £30,000 scanner attached to their £150,000 printing machine. That's what I'm using. It's not better, just different. But it is a very practical and cost effective option, particularly for pros who want to add a unique look to their work. I think it's absolutely fantastic. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tgray Posted November 25, 2009 Share #11 Posted November 25, 2009 I'll be honest, maybe it's because I only became aware of Puts about 4 years ago, when I first got an M, but I don't get him. He is kind of referred to as the guru of Leica lenses, but his newer stuff, most specifically this M9 series, is just rambling... stuff. That one where he posted MTF plot after MTF plot was useless. I've had a hard time finding some of his older lens reviews, which is where I assume he established his credibility. I'd be interested in reading those. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2009 Share #12 Posted November 25, 2009 This is not film vs digital, this is all about choice as noah_addis correctly points out, and we're all the richer for it. Whilst digital has clearly improved massively over the years, so too has the technology to shoot and handle film. The ability to shoot a roll, have it easily processed and scanned at 6,200dpi is here now. Load it into Lightroom, and Wow! The improvements in lenses made for digital also has a very beneficial effect when shooting film, particularly for the newer emulsions. Scanning old negs shot on old lenses does not compare to newer films shot on 'made for digital' lenses. And forget home scanning (unless you have the £16,000 X5). Your local minilab will probably have £30,000 scanner attached to their £150,000 printing machine. That's what I'm using. It's not better, just different. But it is a very practical and cost effective option, particularly for pros who want to add a unique look to their work. I think it's absolutely fantastic. I quite agree. It is just that it is a general subject that has very little to do with a specific "M9 review". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted November 25, 2009 Share #13 Posted November 25, 2009 Great photography on your website Marcus, I just looked at it. Cant remember if you have published in LFI but they would surely love it. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryzet Posted November 25, 2009 Share #14 Posted November 25, 2009 who cares what this putz-guy writes. you probably buy also the car he recommends, unseen... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted November 25, 2009 Share #15 Posted November 25, 2009 Now more than ever it's not a either or digital/film. For me it makes sense to do both. I suspect when people run a roll for them selves they will feel the same. Im loving shooting my 2 Lecia M camera's along side of my 2 Nikon D3. And if when I can get a M9 in the near future , ill bring that along to:D. It's funny when I meet people while shooting on the street they have zero interest in my digital camera's but always express interest in my Nikon F3T or lately the Lecia M(M3,M6) system. Like it or not Film is cool again:p. Stick with anything this good long enough and people will come around. I use Wal MArt for my X-P2 and soup my own B+W. I use a pro lab for my E-6. Just using my lowly nikon scanner with Negs or chrome yield incredible scans that when processed with light room rival any digital file I can get on 24-36 digital capture (D3,5D2) And on the several hundred M9 captures which I recently took make me think that while they look great there is still plenty of room for improvement in the the high ISO department. The other thing which on a more subjected opinion is the lightness of the M9 camera makes it feel cheap compared to the film M. Gregory http://www.rogaltacdesign's@smugmug.com Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2009 Share #16 Posted November 25, 2009 M7= 610 grams, M9=585 grams. Can you really feel a difference? How does your high-ISO film look? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Morley Posted November 25, 2009 Share #17 Posted November 25, 2009 Can someone wake me up please when Puts finally gets round to saying something specific. Don ZZZZZZZZZZZZ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikkor AIS Posted November 25, 2009 Share #18 Posted November 25, 2009 Wow, is there really only that much difference. I surprised that I can even tell. But I can. How do my high ISO film look like?. Grainy . I think the real question is how does the high ISO of the M9 compare to my Nikon D3 . How are my Digital camera going to work when it gets -40 in month in alberta? How about when I get the camera rained on.? Or God forbid dropped like I did with one of my D3 from two feet with my 58 1.2 AIS Nocturnal on to concrete several months back? My D3 is fine. So is the lens. When testing the M9 it froze up "processing after shooting a dozen shoots in a row:mad:. While I can shoot with my M3/M6 for 38 shots as fast as I can depress the shutter and wind the film. On my F4's I can blast 36 shots in 6 seconds. Rewind in ten seconds, pop a new film in in 10 more seconds and do it again. On the D3 with the buffer up grade I can blast 40 raw images in row. Don't get me wrong I love the IQ of the M9 but it's not the greatest digital at high ISO. Im I saying the emperor has no clothes?. It is what it is nothing more , nothing less. And now that the D3s is coming out either is my D3. Expecting one camera in one medium to do it all is more to ask than you are going to get. Everything is a compromise and question of balance. Im a photographer and I can get decent pictures with cell phone. Or a tin can a pin hole and sheept of 4X5 film. I think its important to realize it's the photographer who makes the picture's not the camera. Gregory SmugMug Photo & Video Sharing. You look better here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2009 Share #19 Posted November 25, 2009 I don't disagree, Gregory - hence a cupboardfull of cameras . Did you look in the manual for the lowest operating temperature specified by Nikon? It might surprise you.I tested the M8 to -20 C. It kept on working, as long as I kept a warm battery in my pocket. -40 I don't know. I used an M3 at -45 years ago. The camera froze up. Couldn't turn the lens or transport the film. The same went for the photographer btw. As for dropping, I am the forum expert on that;) Nothing wrong with an M8 and presumably M9 in that department. Like your D3, it just depends where it impacts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrism Posted November 25, 2009 Share #20 Posted November 25, 2009 Just because Erwin Puts is an eccentric Leicaphile, I'm afraid that none of us can assume we are somehow more normal. I can understand the comment above about the M9 feeling lighter than it should for the minimal weight change compared with the M7 - I think the thickness plays a part in making it feel less dense. A subjective thing, but it plays its part. Chris Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.